|
Post by enigma on Jan 18, 2015 13:34:45 GMT -5
If you are in fact saying that certain concrete answers to existential DO get revealed , then I think you are saying something different from E, (?) who seems to be saying that misconceptions gets revealed and thus, the question itself falls away. As I see it, It's one thing for the sense of limitation, being apart from the whole, the need to know concrete answers, to fall away, but quite another to take on a concrete and succinctly describable knowing, about 'what' or 'who' I actually am. In my experience, there are no words to describe that..... certainly nothing that I'd describe as a 'concrete answer'.... not a stagnant 'something' at all that I could put a label or one word to, but rather, "I amness" gets revealed in each moment through experience, and simple being, itself........... but indeed it has been seen that I am not: limited, apart from the whole of experience, a limited who or a bounded what..... Directly 'knowing' you are the cosmos is imo, different from experiencing yourself as the cosmos. And that might sound like nit-picking, but it really isn't when you see that experiencing as the cosmos, requires no attachment to any ideas, no affirmative answer to the question 'what am I', while 'knowing' I am the cosmos, does. So I do understand how an existential question can result in the collapse of the question due to seeing what I'm not, and thus, seeing that the question itself was misconceived, but I don't really have a reference these days for anything that would resemble 'a concrete' affirmative answer to an existential question.....there is simply peace in being, and no more need to 'know' or 'gnosis' anything in particuar about the nature of existence....other than, THIS right here, right now, is IT. Seeing what I am not, need not result in turning around to see precisely and concretely 'what i am' and I'd suggest that if that's the case, mind has intervened the realization and is trying to fill in the blanks, because the question of 'what am I' is still to some degree active. AS I see it, the question 'who am I, really' is one that arises out of need..a sense of feeling lost, limited, apart from the whole of experience, etc. thus, the only 'answer' that is not concrete and does not add more baggage to the knapsack, is the falling away of those beliefs in limitation and the sense of being apartness that they result in...but then, I wouldn't really call that 'an answer.' Nothing E ever says is relevant.......because everything is merely an illusion in nonduality, for him. This is why zd always makes sense, and E, never. For the 23 gazillionth time, illusion is only illusion if you believe it to be other than it is. (ZD and I say the same things)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2015 13:35:48 GMT -5
You're reading more into it than I am. Would you have the same reaction if I suggested that the one pointing was "offering a map"? From my perspective, you're reading more into it than I am. I'm just saying what's being pointed to is not a model. Yea but your pointer makes no sense without a model. Can't escape it when communicating.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 18, 2015 13:37:57 GMT -5
Hence the problem with imagining a middle layer. The middle layer IS the split mind phenomena, unrecognized. The idea of a small self and a large Self is a split mind. There is only Self, which is all encompassing and non-differentiated. The individuated mind/body arises within that Self, but it is not a self. From within the belief that it is, there seems to be a larger Self, or middle layer, that knows mind, or feeds mind, or guides mind, or however that is imagined. There is just that Self, or Beingness, or Isness, or Intelligence, or Consciousness, or Essence, and no others. You are That. This is what nonduality points to, which is not a complex belief system, but just that simple pointing to your true nature. How does then more than one perceiver is here? Is it a same self perceiving from different view points? I see that as a fine way of looking at it.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 18, 2015 13:58:18 GMT -5
Hence the problem with imagining a middle layer. The middle layer IS the split mind phenomena, unrecognized. The idea of a small self and a large Self is a split mind. There is only Self, which is all encompassing and non-differentiated. The individuated mind/body arises within that Self, but it is not a self. From within the belief that it is, there seems to be a larger Self, or middle layer, that knows mind, or feeds mind, or guides mind, or however that is imagined. There is just that Self, or Beingness, or Isness, or Intelligence, or Consciousness, or Essence, and no others. You are That. This is what nonduality points to, which is not a complex belief system, but just that simple pointing to your true nature. How does then more than one perceiver is here? Is it a same self perceiving from different view points? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 18, 2015 13:59:03 GMT -5
Ummm...A model is a representation of something 'actual'. When we describe our own experiences, understandings, realizations, we're using words and ideas to represent them. Your point is well taken that these words and ideas are not to be looked at, it's what they're representing (pointing to) that's meant to be looked at. But they're still models until that point. Or maps or pointers. Theories are different in that they're extrapolations/ideas about the experience, understanding, realization. I agree with this. If you speak rationally, and value logic in communication, you're already dealing with models. Consciousness or awareness being prior to all else. I've got no problem with models. Pointers sit within the context of models. If you don't understand the model, you won't know which way the pointer is pointing. For example nonduality requires an understanding of duality. You've got to know where that is to look away from it. And duality ain't an elementary concept. When we put stuff in the * * or _____ or this.is.it or still mind or This....none of that stuff makes sense without a context of understanding, a model.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 18, 2015 14:07:06 GMT -5
I'm not parsing words here for the he11 of it E... I didn't mean to imply you are. I meant to imply you have an agenda. No, every time I open my mouth, Andrew says I'm talking about a model, because he believes everybody is talking about a model. He would say you are talking about a model. I've made myself clear with 'nothing is ultimately true' and 'everything collapses into a little greasy spot' and 'the questions don't get answered but rather are seen to be misconceived', and about a dozen other things I say regularly. Ask yourself why you would question my use of the term 'answers' now, which was really Steve's term, and ignore everything else I've said for years. I understand that pointers point prior to models (hence why they are called 'pointers'). Otherwise, yes, when we talk we are revealing our model (I wouldn't say 'talking about a model' per se)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 18, 2015 14:09:20 GMT -5
Yup, yup. Unlike Niz, I don't lay claim to inconsistency, but instead talk about context, which is really what Niz means when he says different things to different peeps who have a different context of understanding. Essentially, it's helpful to try to get a sense of what's being said or pointed to rather than analyzing and parsing the words. Usually, even attempting to more clearly define the terms used is not particularly useful, cuz it's not really about the words. Then you need to take a dose of your own medicine. You parse words like nobody else on ST's. You constantly jump on one little word out of place, any tiny little contradiction. "Do you realize what you said?" is your mantra. I look for the meaning, and talk about contradictions or misconceptions in that meaning, or confusion in the understanding. I may ask for clarification in order to understand what is intended. I'm pretty flexible with how peeps choose to define their words, though they're not allowed to redefine mine. If you're referring primarily to the 'discussions' with Silver, they usually take the form of a clear contradiction or misinterpretation or giraffe which usually comes from responding emotionally rather than to what is written. It's seldom about the words used. You, for example, are free to use the term God or SOI, and it's not a problem until it becomes clear that what you mean by it is a personal God. Conversely, I have an issue with Tzu's use of the term "still mind", even though it's a good term, because it's clear he doesn't know what a still mind is.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 18, 2015 14:23:15 GMT -5
Okay, the practice of trying to stop the thoughts is a split mind practice because the one who wants to think is the same one who wants to stop the thoughts. Yes correct, but if someone after reading your message tries to be the way they are rather than stopping the thoughts, then that's an another creation of the mind, because stopping and allowing are creations of mind, Okay, but of course it's not being suggested that one try to be the way they are. If that were going on, I would likely point out the insanity of that. I don't understand.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 18, 2015 14:36:11 GMT -5
I'm not parsing words here for the he11 of it E... I didn't mean to imply you are. I meant to imply you have an agenda. No, every time I open my mouth, Andrew says I'm talking about a model, because he believes everybody is talking about a model. He would say you are talking about a model. I've made myself clear with 'nothing is ultimately true' and 'everything collapses into a little greasy spot' and 'the questions don't get answered but rather are seen to be misconceived', and about a dozen other things I say regularly. Ask yourself why you would question my use of the term 'answers' now, which was really Steve's term, and ignore everything else I've said for years. Well said, that's your model.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 18, 2015 14:38:09 GMT -5
Ummm...A model is a representation of something 'actual'. When we describe our own experiences, understandings, realizations, we're using words and ideas to represent them. Your point is well taken that these words and ideas are not to be looked at, it's what they're representing (pointing to) that's meant to be looked at. But they're still models until that point. Or maps or pointers. Theories are different in that they're extrapolations/ideas about the experience, understanding, realization. I agree with this. If you speak rationally, and value logic in communication, you're already dealing with models. Consciousness or awareness being prior to all else. I've got no problem with models. Pointers sit within the context of models. If you don't understand the model, you won't know which way the pointer is pointing. For example nonduality requires an understanding of duality. You've got to know where that is to look away from it. And duality ain't an elementary concept. When we put stuff in the * * or _____ or this.is.it or still mind or This....none of that stuff makes sense without a context of understanding, a model. Bingo. A model is shorthand.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 18, 2015 14:45:00 GMT -5
Nothing E ever says is relevant.......because everything is merely an illusion in nonduality, for him. This is why zd always makes sense, and E, never. For the 23 gazillionth time, illusion is only illusion if you believe it to be other than it is. (ZD and I say the same things) This is why I say frogster that we only perceive things as we do .. We see it how it is .. from our point of perception .. Black is white if that is how one see's it .
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 18, 2015 14:55:18 GMT -5
I have described the middle layer numerous times. Yes, and I don't remember asking you to do it again. It is also what were before you were born, what you are now, and what you will always be. Do you think you can be other than the essence that you are? Yes...it...is...However...I...don't...understand...where...the...problem...would...be...for... me...in...being...born...'with'...essence... Yes......I know. The word logic is not in your vocabulary. This is what it's like to post with E. E says yes. I say no. E says stop. And I say go, go, go.......o....h.........o..h..oh, oh.... I say good-bye. And E says hello.....hel-lo, hel-lo..........I say goodbye and E says hello........... ............. or.........I say yes. E says no. I say stop. And E says go, go, go .........on...h......o,,h,...oh, ohhh...... E says good-bye and I say hello......... I don't know why E says good-bye I say hello........ ............................ You are the one who said there is no essence (no middle layer)........
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 18, 2015 14:55:46 GMT -5
Nothing E ever says is relevant.......because everything is merely an illusion in nonduality, for him. This is why zd always makes sense, and E, never. For the 23 gazillionth time, illusion is only illusion if you believe it to be other than it is. (ZD and I say the same things) Yes. We are saying the same things in different ways. Figgles: When I use the term "concrete" what I mean is that non-conceptual seeing reveals what is self-evident and utterly unquestionable. Ideas do not play a part in it. My word usage may have been misleading, so I'll try to explain things more clearly by using some examples. E. focuses upon realizations, which involve seeing what is NOT true. Everyone has realizations, but perhaps most people don't have realizations that are strongly recognizable as such. Or, perhaps some people (including this body/mind) become so strongly attached to various ideas that when those ideas collapse, or are seen through, it is both astonishing and powerful, as well as strongly remembered because of the effects that follow. I can remember the first big realization that I had, and it occurred long before I had found any answers to my formal existential questions. Carol and I went to a party where various strong opinions were voiced. Afterwards, we had a long discussion about people who proselytize others about various beliefs. We realized that we, ourselves, were guilty of the same thing, so we resolved to stop expressing our opinions to others about anything. A week or two went by as I kept silent around other people, but it was as if some kind of internal pressure built up inside me, and one day as I was driving along (I have had many realizations why driving--ha ha), I suddenly and explosively saw that my effort to keep quiet was total BS--it was an artificial mind game. I realized that I loved to teach and loved to tell other people about all kinds of ideas. I saw that the idea "I shouldn't tell people about what I think or experience" was absurd, and I was instantly freed from the artificial silence that I had imposed upon myself. I was still unclear about many of the issues associated with the kinds of prosytization that we found offensive, but at that time I would have been happy to shout, "I'm a proselytizer!" even though I didn't proselytize in the sense of forcing my beliefs upon others. I was just happy to be free of an idea that had forced me into a kind of psychological prison. Even today, 40 years later, I can still remember my euphoria that day at realizing that this body/mind loves teaching and telling other people about things that I have discovered. In retrospect the whole thing was very funny, and it still is. On my first Zen silent retreat, after two days of intense meditation, we retreatants were chanting the Heart Sutra in Korean prior to bedtime when suddenly a deep anger arose within me. I thought, "Why are we chanting in Korean? This is crazy. We're Americans, and we speak English. We ought to be chanting the Heart Sutra in English." I got angrier and angrier, and I was surprised at how mysteriously the anger had appeared out of nowhere. When we got to the last lines of the HS, I knew what the English translation of the words was, and that remembrance opened my heart and simultaneously caused the mind to collapse. I became emotional as everything became emptier and emptier. Out of that emptiness I suddenly realized why we were chanting in Korean. Why? Because the ZM who had created the format of the retreat was Korean! Ha ha ha. I saw that my idea ABOUT what was happening was an idea, only, and the truth of the matter was very simple and obvious. You could say that what I realized was the truth of "what is" or the untruth of my ideas, and you would be pointing to exactly the same thing. My final existential koan was worded somewhat differently ("how is it possible for me to stay in a unity-conscious state of mind permanently"), but it boiled down to, "How can I become enlightened?" On a particular day in 1999 I sensed a vague absence (it's hard to describe), looked within, and discovered that who I had always thought I was had vanished. The "me" had disappeared without a trace. The body/mind was astonished as it realized that there had never been a "me" in the way that I had thought. The whole thing had been a huge illusion. As the body/mind looked around in that state of emptiness and without any reference point, it suddenly became obvious that I was "what is"--the whole shebang. Only then did the full extent of the self-referential illusion become obvious. Using E.'s terminology, I saw what was NOT true--that I was NOT a person "in here" separate from a world "out there." That which was conscious was the entire cosmos as manifested through a particular body/mind. We could say either (1) I saw what was NOT true, or (2) I saw what IS true, and either set of words would be pointing to the same thing. The "answer" to my koan--"How can I become enlightened?"--was obvious. "I" couldn't become enlightened because who I had thought I was had never existed. The cosmos had played a joke upon itself, and this is why I often say that God has a HUGE sense of humor. ha ha The only thing that I write about that E. does NOT write about is CC experiences. E. does not write about his personal experiences other than his conversations with Marie. I write about both realizations and personal experiences (which include CC experiences, OOB experiences, non-locality experiences, etc). I consider realizations to be "via negativa" and CC experiences to be "via positiva." In either case, the same things are realized.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 18, 2015 15:14:35 GMT -5
But, parsing words is your expertise, you just dodge issues that reveal the inconsistencies of your beliefs, you get mad and end the discussion rather than admit an inconsistency.. Tzu: Ignoring your claim about parsing or getting mad, I hope you realize that the idea of consistency is not particularly applicable to discussions about nonduality. Two teachers, or the same teacher, can say opposite things about nonduality, but be pointing to the same thing. Language is dualistic, but when it is used to point to that which is not dualistic, the words must always be both true and false at the same time. Gangaji, for example, tells people that they have a choice concerning what they do, but Ramesh said just the opposite. They were both pointing in their own way to the same thing. Someone once accused Niz of being inconsistent, and he just laughed, and said something like, "Of course I am because I'm using different words with different people to point to the same no-thing." The reason koans became popular in Zen as a teaching/testing mechanism is that they transcend the usual way language is used. In fact, most koans are not answered with words at all. A classic koan is to point to some physical object and ask, "What is it? If you call it X, you fall into hell, but if you say it is NOT X you fall into a deeper hell. What is it beyond either X or not X?" Even those koans that are answered with words do not use words in the usual dualistic way because they are pointing to what we might call "a unified field of being." From a snarkier perspective this old quote points to the same thing in a different way, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." From this vantage point your post feels like an excuse for inconsistency.. it feels like excuses for why your favorite model isn't consistent with what is seen with a still mind's awareness.. My familiarity with Zen and its Koans is that the mind's hesitation in answering the question reveals the 'i don't really know' peek at isness.. in the Koan that helped me: "What is the difference between an Orange"? the instant the mind went still realizing the absurdity of the question, i experienced tremendous liberation in that clarity.. the ensuing 'gales of laughter' that flowed from understanding the process prompted the teacher to laugh along, and say.. 'yep, that's all there is to it'.. The Zen model is just another model, one that you favor.. there's no issue if the experiencer realizes the model and benefits from what clarity the model might reveal.. it is the blind attachment to models that fails to reveal benefit or clarity..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 18, 2015 15:15:19 GMT -5
Ummm...A model is a representation of something 'actual'. When we describe our own experiences, understandings, realizations, we're using words and ideas to represent them. Your point is well taken that these words and ideas are not to be looked at, it's what they're representing (pointing to) that's meant to be looked at. But they're still models until that point. Or maps or pointers. Theories are different in that they're extrapolations/ideas about the experience, understanding, realization. I agree with this. If you speak rationally, and value logic in communication, you're already dealing with models. Consciousness or awareness being prior to all else. I've got no problem with models. Pointers sit within the context of models. If you don't understand the model, you won't know which way the pointer is pointing. For example nonduality requires an understanding of duality. You've got to know where that is to look away from it. And duality ain't an elementary concept. When we put stuff in the * * or _____ or this.is.it or still mind or This....none of that stuff makes sense without a context of understanding, a model. I agree. What I don't agree with is that the one pointing has a model, or is pointing to a model.
|
|